Republic of the Philippines

Tacloban City
Office of the city Maayor

15 July 2019

THE HON. ALFRED S. ROMUALDEZ

Mayor
City of Tacloban

RE: MARILOU C. BALINGATA

Administrative Case No. 2015-06-035
Insubordination
-------------------------------------------------------/

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENT Marilou C. Balingata, by herself, most respectfully

states, as follows:

1. Timeliness. Respondent’s received the Office Order No. 15-03-0244

of the Honorable Mayor on 11 March 2015, Respondent would like to
invoke the indulgence of the Honorable Mayor in the name of
substantial justice and equity for the filing of the instant motion only
today because apparently Respondent’s resigned from services last 16
July 2016.

Respondent received her copy of the Administrative case No. 2015-

03- 035 from the Office of the City Legal in the presence of Atty. Earl
Rosario on 5 of July 2019. Respondent thus humbly prays that the
period for the filing of the relief thereof be reckoned from said date
(again in the interest of substantial justice), especially that said
decision carries with it accessory penalties which are confiscatory to
her retirement benefits and chances of being reemployed in the
government.

Respondent resigned from services 16 of July 2016, and has to

undergo treatment for Depression. I would like to seek earnest
consideration for Insubordination case which carries accessory
penalties which prejudiced me, among others, of what I had toiled for
the best years of my life.

2. Grounds for Reconsideration. With utmost respect, Respondent

would like to entreat the Honorable Mayor to take a second look at its
Insubordination/decision and consider that:
 Motion for Reconsideration
Page 2 of 6

A. Jurisdiction   and   Discretion.   Again   with   utmost   respect,   it   is

submitted that the Honorable Mayor acted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it disregarded Respondent’s basic
and fundamental right to due process. 

The first and most fundamental right guaranteed under the Bill of
Rights is the right to due process. Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution provides that: No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

In the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial

Relations,1 the Supreme Court affirmed that even administrative
cases are covered by the guarantee of due process. The Supreme
Court explained:

… The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations

may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain
procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in
justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard
the fundamental and essential requirements of due
process in trials and investigations of an administrative
character. …

The language of the Supreme Court’s decision means that, even in

the most justifiable cases of administrative character, the
fundamental and essential requirements of due process must be
observed. In other words, there is no case, whether civil, criminal
or administrative, that will merit the disregard of the fundamental
and essential requirements of due process.

Thus, Respondent is entitled to the fundamental and essential

requirements of due process, even in administrative cases.

In relation to the above, it may kindly be considered that:

The Formal Investigation Committee had no authority

to continue with the Formal Investigation.

Under Rule 8, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Formal
Investigation shall be finished within thirty (30) days from
the issuance of the Formal Charge, unless the period is
extended by the Disciplinary Authority in meritorious cases.

1
 Ang Tibay v. The CIR, G.R. No. L­46496, 27 February 1940.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Page 3 of 6

In the present case, the Formal Charge was issued on

October 3, 2014.

The Formal Investigation Committee therefore had thirty

(30) days from the issuance of the Formal Charge on
October 3, 2014 or until November 2, 2014 to finish the
Formal Investigation.

The Formal Investigation Committee did not finish its

Formal Investigation by November 2, 2014. Under Rule 8,
Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, only the disciplining authority can extend
the period for the conduct of the Formal Investigation and
only in meritorious cases.

Despite the period having expired and the period not being
validly extended by the disciplining authority, the Formal
Investigation Committee persisted with its Formal
Investigation against petitioner.

By November 17, 2014, the Formal Investigation

Committee was still conducting hearings. During the
hearing on November 17, 2014, the Formal Investigation
Committee undertook to secure an authorization from the
NORSU Board to continue with the Formal Investigation.

Noting the lack of authority of the Formal Investigation

Committee to continue with the Formal Investigation, I was
compelled to file a Manifestation Ex Abundanti Ad Cautela
to put on record that there is no valid authoritization from
the NORSU Board to continue with the Formal
Investigation.

In Montoya v. Varilla,2 the Supreme Court explained that a

decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental right of due
process is void for lack of jurisdiction.

In the present case, it is immediately apparent that

Respondent’s basic constitutional rights were violated. The
proceedings before the Honorable Board were made in clear
and blatant disregard of Respondent’s right to due process
under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. The actions of
and the proceedings before the Honorable Board rendered, as
they were, without due process are therefore void for lack of
jurisdiction.

2
 Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146, 18 December 2008.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Page 4 of 6

B. Respondent’s Participation. As University President, Respondent

had no direct participation in the conduct of the procurement,
beyond approving the recommendation of the University’s Bids
and Awards Committee (BAC). As in any other government office,
it is the BAC that principally handles the procurement process,
namely from the procurement planning to the preparation of the
bidding documents, to the conduct of the pre-procurement
conference, to the actual conduct of the bidding, and to the post-
qualification and award, among others. Notwithstanding
Respondent’s indirect role in the procurement process, only him as
NORSU President has been targeted over this supposedly
anomalous procurement.

Particularly, it is confusing that in the formal investigation, only

the Respondent was targeted and that none of the individuals who
had more direct participation in the conduct of the bidding process
were investigated.

Respondent as University President is not a member of the

University’s Bids and Awards Committee (“BAC”). Under
government procurement rules, specifically section 12 of Republic
Act No. 9184, it is the BAC that shall be responsible for ensuring
that the Procuring Entity abides by government procurement rules.

By law, it is the University’s BAC that is responsible for ensuring

that the University abides by government procurement rules. The
University President merely has a minor role in the procurement
process.

C. Numerous Precedents. The truth of the matter is that the same

NORSU BAC procedure as followed in the aforesaid procurement
—has been the same process implemented in numerous previous
administration’s procurement involving similar circumstances.

On the issue that Respondent as University President entered into a

contract with MARS Laboratory without the NORSU BOR’s
approval, he honestly believes in good faith that the said BOR
approval was not needed upon entering into the said contract for
the reason that the said project was already included in the
approved APP of NORSU BSC, which had an Approved Budget
for the Contract (ABC) of Seven Million Pesos (Php7,000,000.00).
The undersigned was merely following in good faith, the policy or
procedure of the previous University President of NORSU, Dr.
Henry Sojor, in entering into contracts with the winning bidder
without prior approval from the BOR when the project was already
included in the approved APP. In fact, from CY 2004-2012 all
projects, which include among others purchase of goods and
 Motion for Reconsideration
Page 5 of 6

equipments as well as construction and repair of buildings were not

covered by any BOR Resolution appropriating fund and
authorizing said procurement. A copy of the said list is hereto
attached as Annex “C”. Are all these contracts then entered into by
Dr. Sojor in behalf of NORSU without prior BOR approval during
the previous years, irregular and are unenforceable?

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed

that the Honorable NORSU BOR reconsider and vacate its decision in BOR
Resolution No.28 series of 2015, dismissing the Respondent with accessory
penalties of Cancellation of Eligibility, Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits,
and Perpetual Disqualification from Holding Public Office. Other just and
equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

DON VICENTE C. REAL, Ed.D.

Respondent-Movant

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, DR. DON VICENTE C. REAL, of legal age, after having been

sworn, hereby depose and state that:

1. I prepared the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration to the NORSU

BOR, and which I have read and fully understood.

2. I hereby affirm that all the factual allegations contained in this Motion
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and belief, as well as
true and correct on the basis of authentic documents and records in my
possession.

3. I certify that I have not heretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency.

4. If I should hereafter learn that any other similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days from
knowledge thereof to this Honorable Board.

DON VICENTE C. REAL, Ed.D.

Affiant
 Motion for Reconsideration
Page 6 of 6

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME this __ day of April

2015, by the affiant who presented his competent evidence of identity,
namely,_____________________issued by_________________with expiry
date on________________.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015.